How Did Romania Unite? | The Two Romanian Unifications

What caused the principalities of Romania to unite? For centuries, the Romanian lands (Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia) were divided between empires but in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they united into a cohesive nation-state. By forging a path that saw them avoid provoking their more powerful neighbours, even while political divide was the norm at home, the people of Romania were able to create their country and reinvigorate their nation.
Subscribe for more history:
www.youtube.co...
Instagram (behind the scenes!):
/ james_king3125
More Videos:
How Did Austria-Hungary Actually Work?: • How Did the Austro-Hun...
What Ended the Ottomans?: • What Ended the Ottoman...
What Caused Italian Unification?: • What Caused Italian Un...
Why Was Hungary Partitioned After WWI?: • Why Was Hungary Partit...
How Did the Russian Empire Actually Work?: • How Did the Russian Em...
Sources Consulted:
Cercel, Sevastian. “The Legislative Unification of the Romanian Principalities (1859-1866).” Anuarul Institutului de Cercetări Socio-Umane “C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor” XXI:215-235.
www.ceeol.com/...
Jelavich, Charles, and Barbara Jelavich. “Wallachia and Moldavia before 1853.” In The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920, 84-98. University of Washington Press, 1977. www.jstor.org/s....
Jelavich, Charles, and Barbara Jelavich. “The United Principalities to 1876.” In The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920, 114-27. University of Washington Press, 1977. www.jstor.org/s....
Jelavich, Charles, and Barbara Jelavich. “The Balkan States: Internal Political Developments to 1914.” In The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920, 170-206. University of Washington Press, 1977. www.jstor.org/s....
Miller, Stuart T. Mastering Modern European History. London: Macmillan Education LTD, 1990.

[@ZaKRo-bx7lp]

It's so fascinating to me that a language and culture as unique as Romania's survived to the present day after the Roman retreat from Dacia by Aurelian in the 3rd century. Great video

[@Player-re9mo]

I think we should keep in mind that although Romania was separated from the rule of the Roman Empire, it still was close to the Eastern Roman Empire, and influence may have continued for longer.

[@SuperAngelofglory]

ha ha, we are stubborn like that

[@andreikovacs3476]

We have the Carpathian Mountains to thank for that. Romania has been trampled by dozens of marauding horse-archer hordes. Goths, huns, gepids, avars, etcetera Whenever they would come, they always went killing, burning and raping through Moldova and Wallachia, since those are plains and can easily be crossed. The survivors would retreat into the mountains, lick their wounds and get back there to be genocided by the next invader. Until at some point the horse-archers stabilized and formed states; then survival was more a matter of keeping the culture alive.

[@puer4787]

not really that special. Romanians aren't just descendent from dacians, they're a mix of all romanized people from the Balkans. there were many of them and a lot moved north, like to Moldova which was never part of the Roman empire

[@bujdososzekely]

Ze Ro , the daco-roman theory was invented only in the XVIII. century.

[@fd2824]

A Hungarian colleague went on a business trip to Bucharest. The company booked him a room at a hotel called Trianon. Fortunately, he is a nice guy and made fun of the whole story.

[@alexsamu9787]

I confirm that the Trianon Hotel exists. Its named in the name of a french palast where Roumania took Transilvania out of Hungary.

[@reggiekrager5411]

​@@alexsamu9787 *Liberated Transylvania from Austria-Hungary.

[@fuguthefish]

BRUUUH))))

[@j.p.vanbolhuis8678]

@@reggiekrager5411 How can you liberate something that was not occupied. Transylvania was never part of romania.

[@AlecuBeldiman68420]

​@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678🤡

[@EnjoyTraditions]

The video clearly tells you a short explanation of the romanian unions in a simple and efficient way. Thank you 🇲🇩❤️🇷🇴

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

Also Moldovan brother, Cuza was Moldovan. You should be proud to call yourself Romanian as all Romanians from all regions e.g Moldovan, Oltenian, Transylvanian or Muntenian are equally Romanians🇷🇴❤🇲🇩

[@EnjoyTraditions]

@In aeternum Roma Mater "DCCLIII" 💯 true Romania is the land of real Chads love for you all my friends ❤️

[@cristimarius9832]

Nu uita țara ta este de la Nistru pin la Tisa!

[@StackND]

​@@cristimarius9832de la apuseni incolo sunt doar bozgori, vrei si mai multi maghiari in Romania?

[@DimDDG]

@@InAeternumRomaMater but why so many Romanians reject us, Moldovans? We aren't that different but I believe we aren't that accepted

[@pliska6819]

I see Romania, I like. Much respect and love to our northern and best neighbour from Bulgaria. Hopefully together for a very long time and zero borders and more Danube bridges very soon.

[@stanciuflorin5328]

Amen! Brothers FOREVER!

[@serafimbarbu7711]

Romania and Bulgaria should stand togheter! Let us pave our way to succes!

[@florinprisecaru4809]

Of course

[@acorainacoraina59]

After fall of Dacia under roman conquest we Romanians from Dacia, we are separated from Bulgarians from Thrace. We were the same people. In 1950 in Bulgaria the people spoked Romanian language from Danube to the Rodope Mountains. In South of Romania were many villages and families from Bulgaria. Because we are the same people. Dacians and Thrace were the same people, with the same language, same religion, same customs, same cloths and some time they had the same king who rulled dacians and thrace in the same time. We are brothers at the origins. But, because big powers conquered us, they split this brotherhood from between us. They impose different language and different administration. Pitty! After 1919 Bulgaria propose to Romanian king a unification between our countries, but the king refuses. He was scared for the reaction of Russia, Turkey, England, France and Germany. This is truth, there are documents.

[@AmzaSilance]

Give Dobrotici back

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

I would also like to point out that during the Great War, in 1918 when Romania 'supposedly' signed the Treaty of Bucharest, actually Ferdinand the First of Romania didn't sign it which makes the Treaty useless. Romania was still at war but earlier in 1917 Romania did sign an armistice in Focșani which only stopped the fighting while still at war. That's why Romania rejoined WW1, because it never signed a peace Treaty but it only had an armistice with the Central Powers. And another thing is even tho Carol the First joined secretly the Central Powers, it was a defensive alliance, so when Austro-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia in 1914, Romania didn't have to join as it was not a defensive act of Austro-Hungarian Empire to attack Serbia.

[@LookBackHistory]

These details are all true, as far as I'm aware.

[@laszloszoke8849]

In a diplomatic sense Serbia already waged war against A-H because of the terrorist attack, but yea. Also the Armistice of 11 November 1918 should've stopped Romania from further attacking Hungary with the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and the proto states of Czechia and Slovakia. And at the end Romania only joined back for 1 day to the war while being defeated already, the King may haven't signed it, but the I'm not sure about how the Romanian international affairs were dealt with by law in that time, but the government of late 1918 was still a successor of the ones before it so by international law they would've been required to follow these treaties.

[@lilianasoare2524]

The treaty took place to Buftea and was sign by Marghiloman and King Ferdinand of Romania (King Carol the 1st was already sick) did not ratified the treaty. Marghiloman was sacrificed, he knew that, on the past time some of the politicians were patriots too, after that Marghiloman resigned from politics.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

@@laszloszoke8849 The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had nothing to do with Serbia, and Austro-Hungarian Empire knew this but both A-H and Germany had been wanting a war for a very long time which is proven by a letter of Franz Joseph. The idea that Serbia was the one who started the war because of the pan-slavic Union and Black Hand in Bosnia is what Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted to make it look like to start a war. A month later after the assassination A-H declared war which Romania was not pledged to join as it was not a defensive war. The Treaty of Bucharest requires the signature of the King in any law of any Monarchy Kingdom at that time. In the law of Romania it made the Treaty invalid as King didn't agree to it which in International law it requires both parties to agree to it which Romania actually didn't. But nevertheless, Treaty of Bucharest was nullified by the Armistice of 11 November 1918 which Romania was allowed to re-enter the war after the Treaty of Bucharest was absolutely invalid including Armistice of Focșani. And in the Romanian-Hungarian War, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia didn't enter the war. Except when Soviet Hungary attacked Czechoslovakia which saw Hungary being at war on two fronts, but later both Hungary and Czechoslovakia signed an armistice but Romania was the only country at war even tho France promised Hungary that it will make Romania leave "it didn't". Yugoslavia was not present at the war but France sent an ultimatum to Hungary, if they didn't sign the armistice with Czechoslovakia, France AND Yugoslavia would join the war as well from the South.

[@InAeternumRomaMater]

@@lilianasoare2524 What Treaty? Treaty with the Central Powers or Treaty of Bucharest?

[@Lloyd1808]

As a Romanian, thank you for making this video! Our Romanian brothers are most persecuted in Northern Bukovina sadly. Happy Little Union!

[@outerspace7391]

The Ukraine of course... Well, very smart of Romania to back them up

[@hriscubogdan2292]

Ukrainians are fake. They have never been our friends, but enemies.

[@ghodkiller0000]

History teachers would slap you calling that "little union".

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@outerspace7391 As much as we have our conflicts with Ukraine, the possibility of having Russia as our neighbor is way worse. With Ukraine you can come to an agreement. With Russia, you can't. Also, few people actually went to talk with Romanians from Northern Bukovina. Their situation is not as bad as it seems.

[@outerspace7391]

@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Nonsense. One's evil actions don't justify the "victim's" own malicious wrongdoings. Ukraine must be accountable to her own crimes against humanity.

[@15rotari]

There were de facto 3 unions. The first one took place in Medieval times under the rule of Michael the Brave, but it didn't last more than 1~3 years, since he was assassinated. This union was formed by Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia

[@LookBackHistory]

That's true, but the principalities remained three under Michael. My understanding is that there was never true political unification under him.

[@oc5058]

@@LookBackHistory yes, only a short, de facto unification

[@D.A.R.89]

@@LookBackHistory They were one political entity, but you don't have to count that unification because it wasn't meant to be a "Romanian" state. Michael united the principalities because that would make his new kingdom stronger and give him leverage as a ruler. Thx for this video!

[@mihailupu5107]

@@D.A.R.89 they werent one political entity. They were still 3 different states that shared a ruler.

[@superstrongr]

Yes.. first union was by Michael the brave (Mihai Viteazul) in 1600.

[@noras.9774]

Congratulations! I’m from Romania and I’m glad that you reveal the struggle of our country for independence!

[@R4mb0L]

Some other things that could have added about Cuza: Pros: He switched from the Cyrillic Alphabet to the Latin one and this marked a great turning point as it signaled that for the first time in many centuries the country was looking towards the west. He nationalized church proprieties that were about a third of the arrable land in Romania. This had also the effect of decreasing the church's power in the principalities. He freed the gypsies (i think most of them were freed in the 1830's or 40's but his decrees finally freed the last ones that were held by the church) Con: He did a coup in 1864 and he stayed in power with increased prerogatives instead of holding elections as he promised. About Carol the 1st, you could have also mentioned that he came to Romania in discuise as the Austro-Prussian war had already started.

[@vzeq24]

Interesting! You got the quirks of Romanians' lives at those times. 😀 There's a movie called "The 25th Hour" with Anthony Quinn in the leading role. The movie is based on the best selling novel with the same name, written by Constantin Virgil Gheorghiu. The guy played by Quinn, a simple peasant, managed to get in trouble at every corner, with everyone, no matter where he was turning. But he, finally, got what he wanted (reuniting with his family).

[@tepesobrejac4360]

I don't believe the 1848 revolution attempt in Moldavia was that insignificant as you make it out to be in this video. While on the short-term the revolution was unsuccessful, the revolutionaries managed to run away to Austria and then France where they heavily campaigned for the cause of Romanian nationalism and managed to win over the support of the French public, which initially was completely oblivious of the existence of Wallachia and Moldavia, for the union of the two principalities. This is one of the reasons why, after the Crimean war France and Britain permitted the Divanele ad hoc to form.

[@Spanner249]

That’s true of so many small revolts in history.

[@mihaelac2472]

As I read somewhere, the Moldovan and Wallachian 1848-rs fleeing to Paris made them meet and find common ground, creating the basis for the unification.

[@danielm6319]

Romanian story of three principalities is very similar to Croatian story with Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

[@alykarstar]

I think you are one of the few content creators that pronounced names almost perfectly, good job!

[@9_9876]

I am Romanian and this is the best KZbin video I've seen on the 1859 events. Excellent work

[@LookBackHistory]

Wow, thank you!

[@OpenMapping]

@@LookBackHistory yooo

[@Veriox22]

Ι didn't know so many things about Romania. Thanks for the details in the video.

[@LookBackHistory]

Glad you liked it!

[@EuropeanFella]

Thank you for this video! Love from Romania ❤

[@Fummy007]

Thanks James, really great research in this one. The maps make it all so clear and obvious

[@LookBackHistory]

I definitely had a lot of notes for this script!

[@xerxen100]

@@LookBackHistory Good video, but the map at 2:48 was wrong. East Banat region was mostly Serbian at the time, and the Romanians dominate much less land in 48, or even in 1849, althought ethnic cleansing was comitted by them.

[@D.A.R.89]

@@xerxen100 ethnic cleansing?

[@xerxen100]

@@D.A.R.89 To exterminate a group of people because of their ethnicity...

[@D.A.R.89]

@@xerxen100 You know that that couldn't have happened, because the Romanians in Transylvania were 3rd class citizen of the Empire. How would they conduct ethnic cleansing if they didn't even control the state? Ethnic cleansing is mostly done by a state that wants some ethnicities to disappear. The Romanians couldn't have done it because they didn't have any control over the state. That part was just about logic, the other part is that there are no sources whatsoever that say that Romanians in the 19th century conducted ethnic cleansing, because it never happened.

[@notisity388]

Actually Romania united 3 times. When Mihai Viteazul was ruling the country in 1600-1601 Romania was united for a few months. Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania united for i think 6 months. They were united for so little time because Mihai Viteazul got assassinated by the habsburgs. After that Romania got separated again. The other 2 unions were inspired by this one

[@maddog5284]

Yea this was pretty cool, love learning Balkan history it's quite unknown to most people.

[@chris200830]

Romania is not really Balkan as we only have a small piece of Balkan mountains in Dobrogea. Perhaps Carpathian or Trans-Danuabian would apply better in the case of Romania. Still, thank you for taking the interest to learn something about our history :) Love from Romania ❤

[@celestindimitriu3675]

Except is not a Balkan country

[@iscse]

Too bad this video is mainly based on the Wallachian nationalistic propaganda.

[@varain87]

Romania is NOT in the balkans

[@fixipszikon6670]

Only problem it's not history. Transylvania was never romanian until the french gave it to them, so there was no unification, it was annexation. Like the russians try to annex Ukraine, but they get no help from the french.

[@Tanu.90]

Thanks for the video mate! From a romanian history-loving dude 🇷🇴

[@LookBackHistory]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@anysort]

We celebrate today the unification of Wallachia and Moldavia on 24th January 1859, under Cuza… what become in 1866 called officially Romania. Thank you very much for thinking about us, in a very special day for us!

[@Rakagann]

I'm a history student. This is a really well-made History of the Unification. Approved!

[@SmokedAlien]

I just realized that the Romanian said "the 3rd time is lucky/brings luck" may be related to this, considering that the 3rd unification will be the final one (con/federal hopefully) x))

[@raressipoteanu2827]

I am Romanian, thank you very much for this!

[@LookBackHistory]

My pleasure!

[@SuperAngelofglory]

Although you are right and the full unification of Moldova and Wallachia was only achieved in 1862, we consider the 24th of January 1859 as the date of the Little Union. During Cuza's reign it even was the National Day of the United Principalities (as the country was known prior to Carol I rule).

[@varain87]

Canci ! stii tu ceva,dar e incomplet. Tzara se numeste oficial Romania,incepand cu data de 11 decembrie 1861,cand Alexandru Ioan Cuza a dat o proclamatie in care le multumea Romanilor ca l-au ales,si spunea ca alesul lor le da astazi o singura Romanie (intre timp,toate marile puteri semnasera trate in care recunosteau un stat numit "Romania",nu principatele unite)

[@SuperAngelofglory]

@@varain87 Tara s-a numit oficial pentru o scurta vreme Principatele Unite Romane sau Principatele Unite ale Tarii Romanesti si Moldovei. Abia la Constitutia din 1866 se oficializeaza numele Romania, desi Cuza facuse primii pasi in acest sens.

[@lenead1544]

I literally had an exam on this 9h ago. Stayed all the night studying topics for it (this being one of them). And now after the exam, KZbin recommend me this video. I wish I'd found it yesterday... Thanks for the video anyways! And I encourage you to continue doing this, especially with Romania and Basarabia...

[@blockytart]

Hey there! Before all of this, there was a Romanian Unification (Wallachia, Moldova, Transylvania) in 1600 by Michael The Brave, but which only lasted for 1 year. Did you look into that too?

[@outerspace7391]

He wanted to stay focused on Romania's modern history only

[@bujdososzekely]

Blocky Tart , stop sreading the fals wallach "romanian" propaganda !!!

[@fabiApologetics]

@@bujdososzekely its true , google is free , go back to asia ur non european

[@bujdososzekely]

@@fabiApologetics you are a wallach "romanian" extremist.

[@fabiApologetics]

@@bujdososzekely im sorry asian coming from asia ural steppe , “ european”

[@gabrielmarianbalan8215]

Very good documentary....but the first unification was in 1599-1601 done by Mihai Viteazu (Mihai the Brave) he was the ruler of Transilvania ,Valachia and Moldova. Although the unification was very short this was the base for further unification of the three Romanian principalities.

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

That wasn't a real unification so to speak. The communists have been exacerbating if, but in reality it was more of a personal union made by Michael the Brave under the name of the Austrian king. There was not a will for unity among the Romanian people back then, nor there was a national conscience. By the time the post-1848 revolutionaries revived this event into public conscience, people were not even aware of this.

[@gigikontra7023]

​@@Kalimdor199Menegroth funny, you seem to repeat Hungary's talking points.😂 This whole war in Ukraine is based on the idea that "nation states are an artificial construct". Be very careful. Truth is, Romanians knew they were Romanians and that they distinguish themselves from Hungarians. Romanians were fairly mobile (herding sheep on both sides of the Carpathians). There is enough folklore where the concept of nation is mentioned.

[@brb4903]

@@Kalimdor199Menegroth uhm everybody knows this... there's no communist exacerbation..

[@mikedrewson5545]

Great video. Keep up the work.

[@LookBackHistory]

Thanks!

[@petrutarita7451]

Foarte frumos! Mulțumim frumos pentru video!

[@calinradu1378]

Nice video but you got three things wrong. First, Cuza's reign was not as bad as you portrayed it. It saw the creation of modern institutions (the ministries among them), the adoption of the first modern penal and civil codes of law and the definitive establishment of the Latin alphabet, besides the secularization of monastic lands and the partly successful agrarian reform you mentioned. He wasn't deposed because of the result of the reform, but because he wanted to extend his reign beyond his seven year mandate and also had a mistress who unknown to him turned out to be a Russian spy. Second, Romania didn't initially want Dobruja at the Berlin peace Conference in 1878, but the whole of Bessarabia, it only accepted it when it saw no hopes for the first and acknowledged the importance of the second. It was as a result of a war with Bulgaria that southern Dobruja was taken in 1913, but that was never planned in advance. Third, Romania rejoined that war in early October 1918 and by December 1 it already obtained Transylvania as a result of the collapse of the Central Powers. What happened in 1919 was a preemptive strike on the Hungarian Communist Republic of Bela Kun who wanted to jointly attack Romania on two fronts with the Bolsheviks. Budapest was reached indeed and a more friendly government was brought to power there but by the end of 1918 Transylvania was already fully in Romanian hands. The rest is I think all ok!

[@andreeas.2362]

Hear hear

[@itheicequeen]

They were third unifications: Wallachia and Moldavia, 1859. Afther the Independence war Dobrudja, 1878. Transylvania, Banat, Bukovina, Maramures, Crisana, Bassarabia, 1918.

[@unuldintrevoi3350]

Looking forward for the next unification. Basarabia is next on the list!

[@gatwick127]

Romania was very bad at the world wars but had very good diplomatic relations with almost everyone. It is also a country that has all sorts of minorities coming from roman, dacic and slav origins. We also are a very persistant and hard working people and as good farmers as ukraineans and russians are. Our dream is also uniting with our moldovian brothers but that unfortunately will only rise tensions in the east (especially now).

[@sebastianalexandru1264]

CONGRATULATIONS, it is so entertaining to watch, and really useful, please don't give up and continue the animations on more different countries!

[@LookBackHistory]

Thank you. That's the plan!

[@vladescu3g]

there is also the first unification back in 1600 by Michael the Brave, but is was verry short

[@Apokalypse456]

cant wait for the third unification

[@revinhatol]

What next? Romanian overseas territories?

[@giulestinha]

@@revinhatol Republic of Moldova

[@cosmingrigore5999]

hard

[@gaborangecloud]

Great vid. I'm surprised you don't have more subscribers.

[@LookBackHistory]

Thanks!

[@cgt3704]

A former romanian prime minister, Petre Carp once remarked : "Romanians are so lucky, they have no need of politicians".

[@valevisa8429]

So a politician said that ?!

[@cgt3704]

@@valevisa8429 yes indeed

[@valevisa8429]

@@cgt3704 Yes indeed ?!!! You don't see the absurdity of your comment ?

[@cgt3704]

@@valevisa8429 but its true. Life can really be absurd

[@thecringekid5744]

Great video! Technically though, there would be 3 unifications if you were to count the one in 1600. Even if it only lasted for a year, it is quite a fascinating topic.

[@catalinmarius3985]

Very informative video, thank you very much for it!

[@LookBackHistory]

You're very welcome. Your email was part of why it got made!

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

Great vid!

[@adamtamashorvath]

As a hungarian I wish our people could consolidate and come together in our shared history instead of hating each other. Hungarian nationalists will not hear anything about any part of Trianon being just and romanion nationalists will not hear anything about any part of Trianon being unjust or about Szekely autonomy. Thanks to in large part the hungarian aristocracys arrogant and domineering attitude towards the crowns minorities in the 19th century.

[@naruto1999sakura]

I agree with you my hungarian friend, I wish our peoples could come toghether, at least in Transylvania (where I live), we live peacefully side by side, and most people ignore nationalities. I have many magyar friends for example.

[@orbanaron9794]

@@naruto1999sakura respect to you my friend im a magyar from Marosvásárhely - Târgu Mureş and wish more people were thinking like you.

[@jasatotakouzeno4674]

Time for a new Vicky 3 campaign Also you have gained a new sub :3

[@oc5058]

playing wallachia or moldavia is hard af in both eu4 and vicky3, gl

[@acanthaceae7896]

1 correction Romania didnt invade Hungary the comunist Hungariam regime invade in order to get its former borders back but they were unprepared and got pushed al the way to Budapest but Great video!

[@JamesSmith-yb2vi]

Great analysis. Thank you!

[@johnelius4361]

So I have a funny experience to share with you: I was doing some work on my laptop, in the ICT room. The room was completely free, 17 desks (17 computers), I was only using 1 of these desks. Went to print something out (took me about 3 minutes) and upon my return I see a colleague of mine, coincidentally Hungarian, sitting on my chair, using the only occupied desk/17. 16 other options, he chose to use an already taken desk. I then understood what had happened 800 years back. Trăiască România Mare! 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴

[@gaborszadai1992]

„Explicația că latinofonii - proto-românii - se retrăgeau în munți vreme de secole în timpul «invaziilor» este de o absurditate atât de mare, încât e uluitor că a putut fi acceptată de-atâta timp. Pentru ca o populație compactă să trăiască secole în munți, ar trebui să avem așezări atestate arheologic, fortărețe și drumuri. Carpații nu pot fi străbătuți de-a lungul crestelor altfel zis, nici astăzi, cu excepția unor alpiniști puși pe record, nu s-ar putea merge de la sud la nord, de-a lungul piscurilor, din trecătoarea Brașovului spre Bucovina. O populație sărăcită, fugită în munți vreme de secole, și-ar pierde rapid unitatea lingvistică și am avea azi nații romanice distincte între Făgăraș și Maramureș. Apoi, îngustele văi ale Carpaților nu prezintă, arheologic, absolut deloc urmele unei ocupări vechi din partea unei populații masive. La fel cum toponimia și hidronimia munților Carpați nu sunt romanice, ci majoritar slave. Misterioasa populație a strămoșilor noștri care de-a lungul «mileniului de tăcere» (271-1241) e presupusă a fi trăit în munți, în vreme ce câmpia a fost ocupată secole la rând de goți, slavi și cumani, nu a lăsat nici o urmă!” - Dan Alexe, De-a dacii și romanii: o introducere în istoria limbii și etnogenezei românilor „Az a magyarázat, hogy a latinul beszélők - az ősrománok - az "inváziók" idején évszázadokra visszahúzódtak a hegyekbe, olyan nagy abszurditás, hogy elképesztő, hogy ilyen sokáig el lehetett fogadni. Ahhoz, hogy egy kompakt lakosság évszázadokon át élhessen a hegyekben, régészetileg hitelesített településekre, erődítményekre és utakra van szükség. A Kárpátok nem járhatók át a gerincük mentén, még ma sem, kivéve néhány rekordot döntő hegymászót. Egy elszegényedett népesség, amely évszázadokig a hegyekben él, gyorsan elveszítené nyelvi egységét, és ma különböző román népeket látnánk Fogaras és Máramaros között. Ezen kívül a Kárpátok szűk völgyei régészetileg egyáltalán nem mutatják nyomait egy nagy népességű ősi megszállásnak. Ahogy a Kárpátok hely- és víznevei sem román, hanem többnyire szláv [eredetűek]. Őseink titokzatos lakossága, amely a „csend évezredében” (271-1241) állítólag a hegyekben élt, miközben a síkságot évszázadokon át gótok, szlávok és kunok szállták meg, nem hagyott nyomot!” - Dan Alexe, De-a dacii și romanii: o introducere în istoria limbii și etnogenezei românilor (Dákok és rómiaiak: bevezetés a románok etnogenézisébe és nyelvének történetébe)🇭🇺✌🏻...

[@gideonhorwitz9434]

Wanna a know something cool? The royal crown of the untied Romania is a iron crown forged from ottoman cannons captured in war

[@RomanianPizzaGuy]

Should be 3 unifications soon enough :) 🇷🇴❤️🇲🇩

[@h0lynut]

by the time that ever occurs, gagauzia in moldova will be independent and szeky land in romania will be independent. And this is assuming majority of ethnic Romanian's and Moldovan's want to unite instead of staying different nations, systems, and laws.

[@numedecanal1]

@@h0lynut this is insanely wrong, for example the Szekelyland will be annexed by Thailand which will invite Albanians to settle it (the Szekely will eventually adopt the albanian identity) 👍

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@h0lynut Gagauzia won't become independent. It will be pacified by the Romanian army. Szekelyland doesn't even exist. Majority of ethnic Romanians do want to unite, that is correct. Moldova is hardly a functional country. In the last few years, the only reason it did not go bankrupt is because of Romania granting them loans so it can function.

[@rayzas4885]

@@h0lynut Moldova isn't a country lol its a stolen part of Romania

[@h0lynut]

@@rayzas4885de jure its a country and de facto its a country. But its quite comedic that there is any concept of stolen land considering one only needs to know of basic history to know all land could then be considered that with your logic.

[@usernamechecksout]

I stopped at the 42 second mark. Romania had 3 unions: You forgot Michael The Brave's unification from May 1600, which only lasted for one year but it still counts. 😉

[@CipiRipi-in7df]

That was not an proper "union". Remember that, under Michael the Brave, each country retained it's own prince, own institution, own laws and customs and own army. The only common thing was that the prince in all three countries was the same person. So, IMO, it was no more than a personal union. Not a union "per se".

[@thieph]

@@CipiRipi-in7df no, Michael actually implemented the transylvanian model of governance in both the other principalities

[@CipiRipi-in7df]

@@thieph ...he couldn't. It was less than half a year of "union". Way to short to implement any change in governance in any other principality.

[@schutzanzug6731]

What makes that a reunion? What were they reuniting with? Some serf vlach immigrints who migrated there within the 300 years to that point under Hungarian nobles? America can invade Canada because there are American workers working in Canada under Canadian institutions who migrated there for job programs too. Same shit, different times

[@BartholomewVI]

Could you potentially make a video on why people have historically wanted monarchy? I've been learning more about European monarchies recently but I still don't understand why people supported/wanted a hereditary nobility. My American brain is definitely part of the problem 😅

[@shaq6976]

well as a starting point i would say that a uneducated population is a part. If you lived in a monarchy for your entire life, like generations before you, you wouldnt really get ideas of republicanism or revolution if things are generally fine. You also cant fight for things if you dont know them, the peasants simply only knew monarchy or a form of hereditary rule. Ignore my horrendous spelling mistakes im currently lying on my chair and dont speak english as a first language

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

I believe in our modern days, the only thing that keeps monarchies in Europe is prestige. Most European monarchies nowadays are symbols of what they used to mean decades and centuries ago. But at the same time they give an aura of stability. One of the things that helps maintaining monarchies in this day and age is the fact that they no longer have a political voice, nor do they rule directly. As such, the blame for mismanagement or failure was transferred from the monarchy to the political parties and government. Also, Western European countries, just like the US are more 'established' societies. Meaning that they have done some things in a certain way for generations, that it is hard for them to imagine or much less implement a radical change in the form of government. Take for example France, which has been a republic since 1871. It is not a legitimate discussion there if they should bring back the monarchy. Generations of people have only known the republic. On the opposite side, you have less established societies such as Romania, who has changed its form of government quite a few times in the last 75 years. Over here, discussing about bringing back the monarchy or not is a legitimate discussion as there are still people alive who knew about the monarchy (albeit they were really young and they are quickly withering). Sure, this discussion in my point of view is pointless now, since the house of Hohenzollern no longer has the prestige, nor the support it used to have from the population in the 90s and early 2000s, when the former king Mihai I was still alive. Also, saying that people historically wanted monarchies is a bit of a stretch. All of the remaining monarchies in Europe predate the establishment of democracy and universal vote for the general populace. But just as Americans are attached to their Republic, because this system of government is all that they have known since its foundation, so do the people of these European monarchies are attached to their system of government. Why change something that is not broken and doesn't interfere negatively in any way with matters of state and the livelihood of people? After all, just as I said before, European monarchs are no longer rulers, but prestigious symbols who hold only ceremonial roles.

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@shaq6976 Being uneducated or not has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting a system of governance though. There are uneducated people in republics too. The reason why European monarchies persisted is because they no longer have the capacity to rule their countries in any manner, and were relegated to ceremonial roles. They still hold lobby powers, but that's a far cry from the power they held centuries back. By being relegated to ceremonial roles, while the exercising of power has been taken over by politicians and political parties, the monarchies avoid being the center of attention when things are fucked up and are not blamed for failure or mismanagement. After all, they are just figureheads, they do not rule. Whenever someone asks me how did these monarchies survived all the up to the age of republics I always give them the example of Japan during the Shogunate period. The real reason why the House of Yamato (the ruling dynasty of Japan) survived up until today was because for roughly a thousand years the emperors (and empresses) were figureheads with ceremonial roles that had no political power. The power was exercised by the military rulers called shoguns. Because of this, the emperors and empresses could live the good life, conducting their own rituals and ceremonies as well as exercising religious authority, but the shogun took the downfall whenever things were messed up. That is why the shogunate fell in the 1860s but the monarchy survived. Same case in Europe. When the monarchies were ruling their countries directly, they took the fall, as it happened in France for example, but also Germany, Italy, Greece, etc. As such, when things were going wrong, people channeled their frustrations and anger onto the monarchy, often times a handful of men/women. But in a monarchy where the dynasty is just for ceremonies, it is hard to channel your anger and frustration on a guy or gal that doesn't have any real power and doesn't rule. You channel them on a political party. And you vote them out at next election, or force a snap election. Anyway, just as Americans never knew a system of governance other than the republic, so did the British never knew a system of governance other than the monarchy (well, with the exception of a very brief period of time in the 17th century). This stability in the form of governance, coupled by long periods of wealth and prosperity has lead people to accept and get attached to their system of governance. Because if it ain't broken, there is no need to fix it.

[@SuperAngelofglory]

you do know that even France reverted from Republic to monarchy twice, right ?! They had tasted the joy of the republicanism during their first republic (The First French republic was nothing but a succession of dictatorships, one worse than the other)! And why do so many people confuse monarchy with authorian rule and republic with democracy? Oh, by the way, since the clip is talking about Romania, here is a fun fact: all nobiliar titles were banned in the Kingdom of Romania, aside for the royal one. Our kingdom had no barons, pairs, lords, marquis or otherwise and the boyars were "aristocratic" only in the sense that they were very wealthy (yes, before the kingdom there were some sort of titles here, but often they were not hereditary)

[@shaq6976]

@@Kalimdor199Menegroth „if it ain’t broken don’t fix it“ was my whole Point so I don’t get why you feel like you had to write a shizo rant lmaoo

[@guslarz]

Nice video my lad

[@vladutcornel]

We should do another one of those „Unifications”.

[@koalbehy9760]

it’s my birth week, so, thank you for the early gift !!!!!!

[@micahistory]

interesting, i never knew about this history

[@Son_of_Burebista]

Pretty simply put and to the point.

[@lsd8497]

The first reunification took place in 1600 under Michael the Brave, not in 1859 and it included all the three large provinces.

[@peterpelenyi8251]

Michael's troops 👉invaded 👈Moldavia and reached its capital, Iași. The Moldavian leader Ieremia Movilă fled to Poland and Michael was declared Prince of Moldavia. 🤔🤣reunification

[@lsd8497]

@@peterpelenyi8251 I'll tell you another "funny" thing : Movila was vassal to the ottoman empire. And there are zero accounts moldavians were unhappy with unification. So try better next time.

[@peterpelenyi8251]

@@lsd8497 And there are zero accounts moldavians were unhappy with unification. In January 1919, local peasants, with support from across the Dniester, rebelled against the Romanian army in the area of Hotin. The occupation of Bessarabia by the Romanians was not universally welcomed, 🤔🤭

[@lsd8497]

@@peterpelenyi8251 Is this the reason 200.000 bessarabians crossed the border over Prut river right after Stalin's ultimatum? Don't try to teach me history, buddy. I haven't study it in Moscow like you. Besides, it's unclear what you want. Or maybe it is...

[@peterpelenyi8251]

@@lsd8497 The occupation of Bessarabia by the Romanians was not universally welcomed, Maybe you should give up LSD Then will be clear what i talking about.What is the difference between united or occupying it.

[@RhiannonSenpai]

5:31 The Union between Wallachia and Moldova was in 1859, not 1862.

[@soimulpacii9618]

Wrong, the real union of the Țării Muntenești (Wallachia) with Moldova was on 11 december 1861 (through the speech of domnului Alexandru Ioan Cuza) and recognized by the great powers on 24 january 1862, and what happened in 1859 was the double election of Cuza , who was ruler in two states

[@RhiannonSenpai]

@@soimulpacii9618 Fair enough.

[@m.dewylde5287]

Nope.

[@gideonmele1556]

Waiting for the Third Unification

[@GenoBady2738]

Great video 👍 Maybe there will be another unification in the books, in the near future, with those lands taken by the Soviets after WW2.

[@frankthetank5708]

When the problem with Transnistria is solved; and as long as Bucuresti won't take even more decision making, Romania will get Schengen membership and the Euro it will eventually work out.

[@theludakuproject4170]

@@frankthetank5708 eh the big union won't ever be achieved again, north bukovina and Budjak have been taken by Ukraine even tough they are moldovan territories (they were given as a gift to the Ukranian SSR) Ukraine now prosecutes Romanians in those regions, as well as hungars in Transcarpathia

[@frankthetank5708]

@@theludakuproject4170 From where you got that nonsense? Haven't you read the Ukrainian constitution?

[@frankthetank5708]

@@theludakuproject4170 That's obviously not true. The Hungarian and Romanian languages have got minority protection in these areas. It's the same with the Germans and Hungarians in Romania.

[@bulibasa0]

@@frankthetank5708 false, there are around 2 million romanians in ukraine and around 200,000 hungarians. hungarians have limited recognition as a minority, and romanians dont even have that! you, ukrainian bastards, do not want to recognize your crimes against humanity! you say "oMg wE aRe tHe vIcTiM bEcAuSe rUsSiA aTtAcKeD uS", when in fact, us romanians are the victim! Basarabia, Maramureș de Nord și Bucovina de Nord sunt pământuri Românești! Trăiască România! 🇷🇴🇷🇸☦☝

[@hartingtherealone]

Another thing worth noting is Tudor Vladimirescu's 1821 Revolution in Wallachia. Back then, the greeks had formed an underground organisation called Eteria, with russian support, its purpose being, of course, the liberation of Greece. However, they knew they could not do it alone, and called upon the rest of the Balkans to also rise up with them. Out of everyone, only the wallachians responded. The wallachian revolutionaries then managed to get in their side as a ruling figure, the most influential romanian guy in those late times of the fanariots(greek rulers from Istanbul who bought their leadership of the two romanian countries for about a century until 1821), when romanians had absolutely no role in government. The man was the most powerful romanian in the country, because he led the only army there was in Wallachia at the time(as they were not allowed to have an actual army), the pandurs, basically armed peasants. The revolutionaries then proceeded to take control of Bucharest and therefore Wallachia as a whole. They then composed "The Requests of the Romanian People" act, which cited all sorts of stuff, but particularly stressed for an end of fanariot rule, and the return of home rule. Later, the Eteria, and therefore the romanian revolt, lost russian support, making Tudor Vladimirescu try to negociate terms with the ottomans which would assure some gains for Wallachia, knowing that without russian support, the fight was not going to be won. However, the Eteria found him out and executed him, putting some other pro-eteria dudes in charge who would not give up on the fight. Romania then lost the fight, as Greece got its independence by sacrificing us(partly ofc, cant deny the greeks victory on the battlefield against the turks). However, indirectly, the revolution paradoxically achieved its greatest goal: the end of fanariot rule, and the return of romanian rulers to the wallachian and moldavian thrones, as the ottomans were probably convinced at that point, that fanariot rule would cause further instability if let be.

[@froglifes6829]

Whatsapp history. Go open up a history book

[@raygunforme-alex3861]

Good video but I think you missed one thing. There were actually 3 unions and we learn this in history class. I am talking about Mihai Viteazu(Michael the Brave) . In 1600 he conquered Transilvania and Moldavia under Wallachian rule. It only lasted 2 months but it is seen as the first union of the romanian principalities that was quickly torn apart by the neighbouring powers( Otoman Empire, Austria: under Rudolph the II that also ordered Michael’s execution and Poland) . Anyway as a romanian I really appreciate your effort and interest in our culture and truthfully I tell to you that I respect you.

[@schutzanzug6731]

America should have a union with Mexico. We never owned any of Mexico and our people came thousands of years later. And we will suppress all Mexicans and send poor immigrants over and seize Mexican land. We need to adopt the Romanian victim mindset. And the first reunification was the Mexican American war 😂😂😂

[@nicolaegiurgi1439]

It’s great to see content on my country ! 🇷🇴

[@danielciufu1622]

Really good video

[@andronicu]

As a Transylvanian i thank you so much for this video.

[@deciboo189]

You're romanian

[@bananenmusli2769]

@@deciboo189 I think he knows this

[@varain87]

Another correction: hungary invaded Romania first in 1919,crossing the line that was fixed by the allies in Paris.Romanian army counterattacked and pushed them back until budapest,ending the communist regime there.

[@healththenopulence5106]

Hungary began a full scale invasion of slovakia, at which we were kind,y asked by france to step in and remove their government At first the west didnt want to recognise also our unification with basserabia, but the romanian occupation of budapest and leave served as a trading token for them to recognise all the borders

[@SUDMONEYBAGS]

good work bro

[@ComradeNegrisor69]

This video is awesome, u even got the borders rights and split Bucovina from Moldova, not to mention u used the accurate flags too, and talked about how Cuzas failures, ww1 armistice (not surrender), it's the most comprehensive video I saw on the subject made by a foreigner. Amazing video, well well well done!!!

[@leodavid1111]

Btw the Little Union was made in 1959 when Alexandru Ioan-Cuza wass named King of Wallachia on January 24 of 1959.

[@gigikontra7023]

1859, srly

[@komilithon1514]

*prince

[@leodavid1111]

@@gigikontra7023 yeah srry

[@SuchIsLife424]

Romania unifies twice Poland: You guys get to unify?

[@AnDrEi_aLeXaNdRu]

Thanks do this video About history of my country

[@fullcirclehistory]

What do you use to draw your maps?

[@CrysolasChymera2117]

We have to meantion the funny anecdote about the union in 1858, in 1859 both countries and the unionist parties profited from an ambiguity in the text of the final agreement, which, while specifying two thrones, did not prevent the same person from occupying both thrones simultaneously and ultimately the chose Alexandru Ioan Cuza as Ruling Prince. That's when Bismark said ”Romanian is not a nationality, it's a profession”.

[@cmbbfan78]

The second was not a unite: it was capturing territories with 50-95% Hungarian ethnicity, belonging to Hungary since about 1000 years. So it was a land grab. Since then - expect the few years between 1940-1944 when parts of Transylvania was given back to Hungary - the Hungarian ethnicity is fully oppressed. Of course that does not matter for the EU as these people are no migrants or lgbtqqqxxzz...

[@concept5631]

Underrated channel.

[@MrMyrcus]

Cheers to you for putting in the effort to properly pronounce "Alexandru Ioan Cuza"! "Ioan Cuza" pronounciation was exactly like in romanian language. "Alexandru" was not quite but still there :))

[@varain87]

correction: After the 1878 war,all Dobruja,including the southern part of it was recognized as part of Romania,but every time that Romanian army wanted to go there,according to the treaty of Berlin, the russian army declared an animal epidemic and mobilized it's soldiers to enforce quarantine.And it remained like that until the second balkanic war.

[@eryk9864]

Well actually Burebista united the tribes first after that Decebalus united them after him Michael united the 3 principalities and after that the two unions so there are like 4 to be exact

[@gabyspan940]

BUrebista was not romainian.... LOL by this logic we can say the Roman Empire united the lands as well, and then all the nomadic tribes that held this land, huns, goths, avars, slavs. This topic is about the romainian people, not their distant millenia ancestors

[@valevisa8429]

You forgot about the other two,one during Jurassic era and the other in Stone Age.

[@gaborszadai1992]

Vitéz Mihály never united Moldova and Ungrovlachia not even our Erdély🇭🇺✌🏻...

[@ChancellorOfHistory]

Please make a Video about the Balkan Wars or the Italian-Turkish War!

[@LookBackHistory]

Something you might like is coming out tomorrow!

[@davidcioby2904]

Fun fact: there was one more union in 1600

[@m.dewylde5287]

Nope.

[@veteranu79]

1600 the first unification by Michael the brave ! Mihai Viteazul

[@RAGNUSS]

in fact, Romania was called by Austria in 1916 to help it to save Hungary from the Communist Bolsheviks who were trying to revolt in Hungary. Tens of thousands of Romanian soldiers died to rid Hungary of the communists, and there was not a single Hungarian soldier, and if the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Russia did not intervene, Romania would have crossed the Danube and reached Budapest at that time, and Alexandru Ioan Cuza wanted to reunify all the territories where the Romanian language (Wallachian for foreigners) was spoken in Dacia.

[@BaferTet]

In 1916 where did you see communist bolsgeviks?

[@TeunisD]

Romania looks very Roman, very Latin, very Italian and Spanish. Mixed with some Greek, Turks and so on.

[@schutzanzug4518]

Transylvania was never a Romanian principality. Not even close. They were a independent entity for around a century. Nobles elected the voivide, it was under the same exact system until around 29 years in their independence, where the king of Hungary at the time renounced his claim of king and instead “king of parts of Hungary” and instead of voivede he called himself something like prince of Transylvania or something. And then a few years later he died and the name voivede stuck back. At that time, the monarchs were really powerful and lent their land to different families and nobles. The only difference between Transylvania and let’s say any other random part of the country at the time discluding king owned territory such as pest and pressburg was the fact 1. They were called the voivod and 2. They had permission to give nobles more power without interference by the king. So much for being an independent entity.

[@StackND]

Yapping yet still no transylvania?

[@schutzanzug4518]

@@StackND Well the winners are the ones writing the history books.

[@StackND]

@@schutzanzug4518 reality writes itself tho

[@schutzanzug4518]

@@StackND there wasn’t a Romanian unification. There was a Romanian military invasion.

[@schutzanzug4518]

@@StackND the books don’t write themselves man

[@ESE73]

5:37, the first unification was in 1600, but it lasted only until 1601.

[@navybro7155]

the first two images made me think that this video was in romania(the first map is at the entry of every park in Iasi and the second one, I copied that image in art class for like 3 years in a row for 1st December day) btw, I am a moldovan from both parts of the Prut riverand I think we should recreate Greater Romania In Unire e puterea, frati! 💪☦

[@ionpopescu5415]

Transilvania (ARDEAL) is compose of: TRANSIVANIA + BANAT + CRISANA + MARAMURES ... not only TRANSILVANIA

[@AndrashYT]

FIRST FOREIGN KZbinR TO SAY A ROMANIAN NAME CORRECTLY 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥

[@LookBackHistory]

Thanks, I try.

[@colinafobe2152]

I have a question for Romanians. Are there any regional differences between Romanians of regions of Moldova, Țara Românească, Transilvania, Banat and Bucovina? In language, culture, tradition, music, regional sentiments. Love from Banatul Sarbesc

[@gigikontra7023]

No difference in language. Same language throughout Romania. Slightly different intonation/accent depending on region. Generally the same traditions, although some places have additional ones (căluș dance in Oltenia).. Similarly, folklore and folk dances are a bit different between regions. My impression is that people's main identity is as Romanians and only secondarily as inhabitant of certain region. The national identity comes first.

[@knuckles0bws]

1. Language: there is a difference in accent and a few regional words, but for every provincial word, there are official words that everyone understands and we use them when talking with someone from a different region. 2. Culture: few differences, if we talk about stereotypes, folks from Transilvania are considered to be a bit more civilised, but speak and move a bit slower, folks from Oltenia speak faster and are known for having a short temper, folks from Moldova are more serious but also considered to drink more, and things like that which add a bit of spice to our culture. 3. Music: there are differences between music and dance, but they are definitely part of the same branch. 4. Regional sentiments: for every normal romanian being together is the greatest gift from our ancestors. Like everywhere there are some animosities between regions, but they mostly manifest among uneducated folks, the rest of us enjoys the differences, it makes things more fun and interesting.

[@MPrae]

Yes there are, in some places from village to village as in traditions, maybe popular/folk dance or traditional/popular clothes. every area of the country was invaded several times by many people, so in Transylvania we have words borrowed from Hungarian language, in Tara Romaneasca from turkish, in Moldova more slavic words etc BUT everywhere you go in this beautiful country from far North to far South and from East to West it is the same Romanian language and every Transylvanian can understand every Moldavian and so forth, yes we have some cultural differences but we are still an island of Latinity surrounded by slavic countries and hungarians

[@colinafobe2152]

@@MPrae i adore Romania and visited several times, worked there for short too in Cluj Napoca. Some students from outside Transylvania were shocked why I say "binye" instead of standard bine. but that is how Romanians from Serbian Banat talks :) So i assume people from Iasi have different accent from Timisoareans

[@ive0804]

@@colinafobe2152 The people of Iași have for "bine" the word "ghine/i" . The educated people are using ,,bine,, as per official literary language. It is normal to have regionalism words.

[@cristimarius9832]

Love România forever! My country!

[@Akna6901]

Lol, imagine thinking Transylvania isnt Hungarian...

[@djprojectus]

Because it isnt.

[@VladErhanTravel]

Greetings from Romania❤️

[@farright118]

moldova should unify with Romania Its a soviet creation

[@bananenmusli2769]

It's a remnant of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement

[@ionelmuntele4353]

There has never been any "little" or "big" union. There was only one union, that of the Danubian principalities (Moldova and Muntenia) that formed modern Romania. To which Dobrogea (1878), Bucovina, Transylvania, Banat, Crisana, Maramureș (1918-192) and temporary Bessarabia (1918) were later annexed by treaties.

[@AndriPopUp]

Transylvania actually united with Romania on 1st of december 1918, not in 1919/1920. great vid!

[@emifloppa9830]

Bro the two unifications: The Little: 24 of january1859 The Great Union: 1 december 1918

[@Shadowsthetics]

Im happy That our Romance language survived and we weren’t russificate

[@VpGPT]

For those who say(especially the hungarians and all the amateurs who learn history from Wikipedia)Romania is the heritage of the Roman empire , pls read the books about the genetic of this country , there are many books , the last was published last year and the name of the author it's Mihai Netea , the other are written by Alexander Rodewald and Dr. Georgeta Cardos , In this two books they say that the people from romania have 80% from genetic from the same people that was 5000 years ago (same territory today).... and the hungarians made a study about them how much adn have from Arpad tribes etc not even more than 1% so say thx bcs he renounced to his religion and take the catholicism like that the magyar still exist today ... read books not just Wikipedia guyz ...

[@healththenopulence5106]

Reading books doesnt make you smarter bro? We know the history and the fact that romanian language spread, instead of the people. You cant quantify that with dna

[@VpGPT]

@@healththenopulence5106 if its not the study we talk about , then its what ? So somebody who study about Getae / romanian etc and after 30 years of study he write a book and published with all what he find ? Its a bullshit ? And im not saying im smarter if a read a book , im just saying the reality the others write and the fact its some countries don't like , also ur people , I think you're hungarian also... And what I just saying last time its not history its a study about them .. so have a nice day and don't try to be smart , you're just showing u are a little brain ....

[@mihailupu5107]

The Ottomans never occupied the romanian principalities

[@rohansensei5708]

They did but never fully integrated to empire. Wallachia was about to get annexed if not for Michael the Brave.

[@mihailupu5107]

@@rohansensei5708 occupation and vassalization are 2 different things

[@rohansensei5708]

@@mihailupu5107 I think you’re mistaking occupation with conquest

[@Kalimdor199Menegroth]

@@rohansensei5708 It wasn't really conquest per se, more like asserting authority without direct rule. The Ottomans have tried a number of times to properly conquer the Romanian principalities, but it always proved to be too costly in terms of resources and manpower. It was far more efficient and sustainable for them to just force them into submission and extort money out of the princes which depending on the timeframe, they even appointed. Which is why they stuck with this vassal system for centuries. This vassal system came with some perks but also with some disadvantages. The perks being that the Ottomans were forced to sign several 'capitulations' in which they had no right to build mosques, to settle Muslims or to perform conversion missions in the two principalities. The disadvantage was that the principalities were extorted of their wealth for centuries, giving no breathing room for economic, cultural and social development as the princes became more like tax collectors rather than proper rulers. They had to pay an annual tribute and extra gifts and other expenditures to the sultan and his entourage for centuries, tributes, gifts and expenditures which only increased as time went by and the Ottoman Empire started declining in the fact of economic challenges.

[@rohansensei5708]

@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Yeah that’s correct but Ottomans still did occupied the principalities quite a lot except for the Transylvania but ended with a retreat and cities were recaptured along with it. Non-annexation worked better for Ottomans, Austria and Commonwealth since they were buffer zones with low seperate military power to effect the political arena. If Ottomans did annex all of them probably they’d trigger the unification of Romania way sooner and eventually would lost these part earlier.

[@stefanbirsan3320]

wow, this is pretty acurate, it is rarely you see something so good on YT. Especially since this is an outside perspective.

[@dariusmicluta4415]

The first romanian unification happend in 1600 (for one year) led by Mihai the Brave